I cancelled my local newspaper subscription because of this crap. There was some perv driving around trying to lure middle school girls. Paper refused give complexion description, just "male 20-40 driving blue sedan".

stevetherobot:[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 464x344]This is Papa Bear. Put out an APB for a male suspect, driving a... car of some sort, heading in the direction of... you know, that place that sells chili. Suspect is hatless. Repeat, hatless.

Years back (dunno if they're still like this), one of the news stations in Roanoke, Virginia, was just like this. They would NOT give the skin color of any suspect, no matter how urgent the report was.

One time, back in 2000 or so, there was a guy who got into some big argument with his woman. Shot her, walked out, shot at / wounded a couple neighbors, stole a random car, and drove down the street popping off random shots. Police are looking for him, stressing how dangerous he was, he was armed, he was shooting at random people, etc etc.

News report gave:His nameWhat he was wearingThat he had a shaved headHis home addressNicknamesWhat high school he went toTattoos

BarkingUnicorn:jaytkay: 1)Story does not mention race of a white suspect.

You people: *crickets*

2)Story does not mention race of a black suspect.

You people: I AM CANCELLING MY NEWSPAPER SUSCRIPTION!!1!!

If you can't see the flaw in your post, you're a damned fool.

Congrats, Jaykay. You became a rare person. You're a person that Bucking Unicorn can look at and say, "Man, that guy is either a moron or trolling." Do you realize how rare that is? That's even more rare then Big Foot.

Profedius:Identifying the characteristics of a suspect in not racial profiling

No, but the characteristics constitute a profile. Stopping someone solely because he fits a profile is what this bill aims to end. It also encompasses gender, age, and other types of profiles, not just racial profiles.

The cops will have to work like this:

"Be on the lookout for a black male, approximately 20 to 25 years old, wearing... if you see a person fitting this description AND he is doing something that arouses reasonable, specific, articulable suspicion, you may stop him."

BarkingUnicorn:Profedius: Identifying the characteristics of a suspect in not racial profiling

No, but the characteristics constitute a profile. Stopping someone solely because he fits a profile is what this bill aims to end. It also encompasses gender, age, and other types of profiles, not just racial profiles.

The cops will have to work like this:

"Be on the lookout for a black male, approximately 20 to 25 years old, wearing... if you see a person fitting this description AND he is doing something that arouses reasonable, specific, articulable suspicion, you may stop him."

The "reasonable suspicion" part is what NYPD has been ignoring.

True, but I do not have a problem with the police questioning everyone who fits the description. The problem here is that black people feel they are being harassed by the police, but the problem is the greater number of petty crimes are committed by black people. I am pretty sure that black people are being harassed by the police, but the problem is not their race, but the actions of their race. If they want to correct the problem they need to start raising their kids right and taking some responsibility instead of trying to implement laws that make law enforcement more difficult and cost society its safety

Profedius:BarkingUnicorn: Profedius: Identifying the characteristics of a suspect in not racial profiling

No, but the characteristics constitute a profile. Stopping someone solely because he fits a profile is what this bill aims to end. It also encompasses gender, age, and other types of profiles, not just racial profiles.

The cops will have to work like this:

"Be on the lookout for a black male, approximately 20 to 25 years old, wearing... if you see a person fitting this description AND he is doing something that arouses reasonable, specific, articulable suspicion, you may stop him."

The "reasonable suspicion" part is what NYPD has been ignoring.

True, but I do not have a problem with the police questioning everyone who fits the description. The problem here is that black people feel they are being harassed by the police, but the problem is the greater number of petty crimes are committed by black people. I am pretty sure that black people are being harassed by the police, but the problem is not their race, but the actions of their race. If they want to correct the problem they need to start raising their kids right and taking some responsibility instead of trying to implement laws that make law enforcement more difficult and cost society its safety

Hey hey hey! That's intelligence and good sense, we don't truck with that sort on here! Who do you think you are, Bill Cosby?

On an interesting side note, while poorer people commit more crime than those who are better off (though often just get caught more..), when the crimes of poor whites are compared against poor blacks, whites are the ones committing petty crimes. Poor blacks, however, commit petty crimes using violence to a much higher degree. It's the violence factor that makes alllllll the difference, and that's why I really struggle to give a shiat about racial profiling.

Profedius:BarkingUnicorn: Profedius: Identifying the characteristics of a suspect in not racial profiling

No, but the characteristics constitute a profile. Stopping someone solely because he fits a profile is what this bill aims to end. It also encompasses gender, age, and other types of profiles, not just racial profiles.

The cops will have to work like this:

"Be on the lookout for a black male, approximately 20 to 25 years old, wearing... if you see a person fitting this description AND he is doing something that arouses reasonable, specific, articulable suspicion, you may stop him."

The "reasonable suspicion" part is what NYPD has been ignoring.

True, but I do not have a problem with the police questioning everyone who fits the description. The problem here is that black people feel they are being harassed by the police, but the problem is the greater number of petty crimes are committed by black people. I am pretty sure that black people are being harassed by the police, but the problem is not their race, but the actions of their race. If they want to correct the problem they need to start raising their kids right and taking some responsibility instead of trying to implement laws that make law enforcement more difficult and cost society its safety

BarkingUnicorn:"The bill allows police officers to use all manner of descriptive information, including skin color, height, age, in suspect descriptions. It absolutely allows it and it's a lie to say it doesn't."

So I followed that link, which led me to the actual text of the bill. I then read it. I know, someone on Fark doing some research, shocking.

Anyway, basically the above quote is more or less right, in the sense that it does not prohibit the NYPD from giving a full description including race, gender, etc. etc. What it DOES do is expand the racial profiling protections to include a bunch of other things, specifically "color, creed, age, alienage or citizenship status, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or housing status", renaming it "bias-based profiling". The law stops the NYPD for using any of these things as the "determining factor" in stopping or detaining someone. That's the existing law, to be clear. Basically what this bill does is add things which are no longer okay as "determining factors".

On the one hand I think a lot of these things are good things to protect against profiling. Right now a cop could conceivably say "be on the lookout for a group of no-good college kids" and the police would be perfectly justified in stopping any teen-to-twenty-somethings wandering past (whether they would is another story). On the other hand, some of these protections seem a little dicey. Like if a cop says "suspect is in a wheelchair" and you see some dude frantically rolling and, most importantly, no other people in a wheelchair around, that could conceivably be profiling under this bill. Then there's "housing status"... I mean I know what they're going after, but how in the hell is this actually ever going to come up. No cop is ever going to check in during a foot pursuit to say "suspect was upside-down on his mortgage and got evicted last month" when they try to give a description. I guess it'll stop them from saying "bum" and stuff, but I'm having trouble thinking of another short word which so accurately puts an image in your mind of a person dressed in filthy clothing who quite clearly has been sleeping rough.

Anyway, shocker, it's not nearly as bad as the article makes it out to be.